The Relationship Between Intellectual Functioning and Relational Perspective-Taking Nick J
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy provided by MURAL2010, - 10,Maynooth 1, pp. University 1-17 Research Archive Library The Relationship between Intellectual Functioning and Relational Perspective-Taking Nick J. Gore*1 Yvonne Barnes-Holmes2 and Glynis Murphy1 1The Tizard Centre, University of Kent, UK 2National University of Ireland Maynooth, Ireland ABSTRACT Several studies have employed an RFT-based test protocol as an assessment of perspective- taking with both typical and atypical samples of adults and children. In addition, other RFT protocols have found significant correlations between competencies on specific relations and outcomes on standardised IQ measures. However, there is no research to date that has examined correlations between relational perspective-taking and IQ. In the current study, 24 adults with varying levels of intellectual disability were exposed to standard measures of language ability and IQ, as well as an RFT-based test protocol for perspective-taking. In line with previous evidence, the results indicated significant differences across performances on different aspects of the perspective-taking protocol. Furthermore, the data indicated that perspective-taking correlated with verbal ability, full-scale IQ and performance IQ. These findings provide further evidence of the utility of the RFT-based protocol of deictic frames and highlight the role of intellectual functioning in perspective-taking. Key words: RFT, Perspective-Taking, Intellectual Disability, IQ, Verbal Abilities. RESUMEN Varios estudios han empleado un protocolo conductual basado en la RFT para la eva- luación de la toma de perspectiva con adultos y niños. Además, otros protocolos han encontrado correlaciones significativas entre competencias en relaciones específicas y resultados en medidas estandarizadas del CI. Sin embargo, hasta la fecha no hay estudios que examinen las correlaciones entre toma de perspectiva relacional y CI. En el presente estudio 24 adultos con diferentes niveles de discapacidad intelectual fueron expuestos a medidas estándar de habilidad en lenguaje y CI, así como a un protocolo basado en la RFT para la evaluación de la toma de perspectiva. En línea con la evidencia previa, los resultados indicaron diferencias significativas en las ejecuciones en diferentes aspectos del protocolo de toma de perspectiva. Además, los datos indicaron que la toma de perspectiva correlacionó con habilidad verbal y CI. Estos hallazgos apuntan al papel que tiene el funcionamiento intelectual en el lenguaje conductual y proporcionan nueva evidencia de la utilidad del protocolo de marcos deícticos basado en la RFT y aportan datos sobre el papel del funcionamiento intelectual en la toma de perspectiva. Palabras clave: RFT, toma de perspectiva, discapacidad intelectual, habilidades verba- les. * Correspondence should be addressed to Nick J. Gore, The Tizard Centre, University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent, CT2 7LZ, United Kingdom. E-mail: [email protected] 2 GORE, BARNES-HOLMES, AND MURPHY Perspective-taking has traditionally been studied within a cognitive-developmental framework, often under the rubric of Theory of Mind (ToM, see Baron-Cohen, Tager- Flusberg, & Cohen, 2000). Support for this account is in part derived from the study of persons with autistic spectrum disorder (ASD) who demonstrate significant difficulties in perspective-taking that are interpreted as deficits in the development of a complete understanding of the minds of the self and others (i.e. a theory of mind, Baron-Cohen, 2001). The relationships among ToM, perspective-taking and ASD are not however straight forward, in light of two sources of evidence. First, persons diagnosed with high-functioning ASD have reportedly passed ToM tasks (Royers, Buysse, Ponnet, & Pichal, 2001). Second, ToM deficits have been observed in other persons with diagnosed intellectual disabilities in the absence of ASD (Jahoda, Pert, & Trower, 2006). The ToM approach to perspective-taking is embedded within a cognitive and specifically representational understanding, according to which a particular meta-re- presentational module has been identified as the key process behind one’s ability to demonstrate a ToM. As well as being relatively ill-defined and difficult to integrate with other accounts of these phenomena, the research noted above suggests that there may be more to perspective-taking than the functioning of a particular cognitive module. As an alternative, some cognitive researchers have suggested the possible utility of a domain-general approach (Bowler, Briskman, Gurvidi, & Fornells-Ambrojo, 2005). A domain-general approach has also been proposed by behavioural researchers, although they have not articulated it in this way and their account is located under the general functional theory of human language and cognition, known as Relational Frame Theory (RFT; Hayes, Barnes-Holmes, & Roche, 2001). In short, this is a broad contextual account of language and cognition, at the heart of which lies the processes of deriving arbitrary stimulus relations. These relations can be categorised according to various families of relational frames that specify the types of relations by which higher-order behaviour is organised. Perspective-taking skills, as behaviourally defined, appear to overlap considerably with ToM performances. For RFT, the former involves a family of deictic relational frames that control all aspects of taking the perspective of oneself and others. Accor- ding to this account, three such frames appear to be critical for the development of perspective-taking and these have been referred to as I vs. YOU, HERE vs. THERE, and NOW vs. THEN. Deictic relations emerge in part through a history of responding to questions such as “What am I doing here?” or “What are you doing now?” across which the physical environment changes, but properties of the critical relations remain constant. For example, I is always from this perspective here, but not from the pers- pective of another person or somewhere else. For RFT, it is important to emphasise that a range of spoken words many func- tion as the relevant contextual cues that control the derivation of the perspective-taking relations. Although the most common examples include, as expected, the actual words “I”, “you”, “here”, “there”, “now” and “then”, the co-ordination of these words with many other words and phrases generates an almost infinite array of substitute words that will function as cues to control perspective-taking relations. Consider the following example: “It is one o’clock (NOW) and I am at work (HERE), but Mary (NOT I) is © INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY & PSYCHOLOGICAL THERAPY, 2010, 10, 1 http://www. ijpsy. com INTELECTUAL FUNCTIONING AND RELATIONAL PERSPECTIVE-TAKING still in the restaurant” (THERE and NOW). These alternative or substituted words serve the same contextual functions that would otherwise be provided by the actual words themselves. For example, “Mary” or “her” may be functionally equivalent to “YOU” and “the restaurant” may be functionally equivalent to “THERE”. What is important, from an RFT point of view, is the generalised relational activity and not the actual words themselves (as is the case for all relational frames). In order to test RFT predictions about perspective-taking, researchers have de- veloped an assessment protocol derived from the three deictic frames (Barnes-Holmes, McHugh, & Barnes-Holmes, 2004). In studies with typically developing children and adults, a positive correlation has been reported between performances on a 62-item version of the perspective-taking protocol and chronological age (McHugh, Barnes- Holmes, & Barnes-Holmes, 2004). Furthermore, the same researchers have identified functional differences between different items on the protocol in terms of level of relational complexity and frame-type. Rehfeldt, Dillen, Ziomek, and Kowalchuk (2007) reported two experiments in which children with ASD were exposed to a 57-item version of the perspective-taking protocol for assessment and training purposes. The study was also concerned with whether this sample would show deficits in perspective-taking, relative to age-matched typically-developing peers and whether accuracy in perspective-taking correlated with scores on standardised instruments for assessing ASD. The results of Experiment 1 demonstrated statistically significant differences in errors as a function of relational complexity and also showed that participants with ASD made more errors than the controls on two of the three relation-types. The results of Experiment 2 demonstrated that a history of reinforced relational responding improved performance on the pers- pective-taking protocol. In a related study, Heagle and Rehfeldt (in press) used an extended version of the protocol to teach typically developing children between the ages of 6-11 perspec- tive-taking skills and tested for generalisation to a real-world conversation. The results demonstrated the utility of the protocol as a training tool when all three participants displayed criterion performance on all three post tests for the reversed relations. One participant needed explicit training on simple relations and two required training on double reversals. Furthermore, the generalization probes indicated strong generalised performances on most relations for most participants in terms of novel stimuli and novel conversational arrangements. As a result,